Talk:Yankee Doodle Coffee Shop
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Picture[edit]
THis article needs a picture.Yilloslime (t) 00:54, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- I'm in New Haven now, so I'll try to take one next time I pass by. Lesgles (talk) 07:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- Awesome. By the way, in some of the presumably non-free images I've seen on the web, there appears to a small brass plaque attached the building to the left of door. Would mind taking a look at it and seeing if says anything about the Doodle or the building being on the register of historic places or somesuch? Thanks. Yilloslime (t) 08:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- I happened to pass by the Doodle today and remembered you mentioned wanting a picture, so I took this one with my phone. Feel free to replace it if something better comes along. — DustinGC (talk | contribs) 04:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oh man that is awesome! Nice work! Yilloslime (t) 06:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
- That's great. I waited too long and now it's boarded up. Lesgles (talk) 00:01, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
This article talk page was automatically added with {{WikiProject Food and drink}} banner as it falls under Category:Restaurants or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. You can find the related request for tagging here -- TinucherianBot (talk) 11:43, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Notability[edit]
Surely this is not a notable institution. References in local media only. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 19:56, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
- The New York Times is considered local media? (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/31/nyregion/31doodle.html?_r=1&em&ex=1201928400&en=75c988e348ba9b05&ei=5087%0A) Markvs88 (talk) 20:03, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
- Since that article is headed "New Haven Journal", and is in the "Regional" section of the website, yes. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 20:58, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
- NYT is already cited, and you if want other non-New Haven sources, you can take your pick for these. Yilloslime TC 21:24, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
- Let me understand this... you're anything in the "Regional" section of the New York Times is the same as being in the New Haven Advocate? That's like saying that one couldn't cite the Society page to prove someone is married! Both the New York Times and the New Haven Register are papers of record -- that is, they're both verifyable primary sources. Here, I'll add a link from the Boston Globe. [[1]]Markvs88 (talk) 22:01, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
- I'm saying that they do not establish notability: significant coverage in reliable sources. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 16:56, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
- Please explain how they do not. The place is an official City of New Haven landmark. According to [[2]], "The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere "flash in the pan", nor a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity, nor is the topic unsuitable for any other reason. Sources of evidence include recognized peer reviewed publications, credible and authoritative books, reputable media sources, and other reliable sources generally." The Doodle at 58+ years was obviously no "flash in the pan". There are articles covering it in major (reputable) newspapers as noted. It isn't self promotional. Clearly, the Doodle passes every test for notability and is further notable for serving 60 years worth of US Presidents, Senators, Congressmen, actors, artists etc that have passed through its doors. So far you've yet to make a case that the Doodle is not notable, other than stating that you do not like the NY Times article for some reason. Markvs88 (talk) 17:16, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
- I'm saying that they do not establish notability: significant coverage in reliable sources. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 16:56, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
- Let me understand this... you're anything in the "Regional" section of the New York Times is the same as being in the New Haven Advocate? That's like saying that one couldn't cite the Society page to prove someone is married! Both the New York Times and the New Haven Register are papers of record -- that is, they're both verifyable primary sources. Here, I'll add a link from the Boston Globe. [[1]]Markvs88 (talk) 22:01, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
- NYT is already cited, and you if want other non-New Haven sources, you can take your pick for these. Yilloslime TC 21:24, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
- Since that article is headed "New Haven Journal", and is in the "Regional" section of the website, yes. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 20:58, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
The litmus test for notability is significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. There's plenty of coverage in the local media cited in the article: New Haven Register, Yale Daily News, New Haven Advocate, etc. Then there's regional coverage in the Hartford Courant and the New York Times NY/Regional Edition, also already included in the article. Not included in the article is coverage in the Rocky Mountain News, Deseret News (Salt Lake City, UT), Atlanta Journal Constitution, Boston Globe, Sarasota Herald-Tribue, etc. The bar of notability is easily met; this is not simply a local interest topic. Yilloslime TC 17:36, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
- No, the onus is on the author to establish notability. Merely lasting for 58 years is not notable, and notability is not "inherited" by association with notable people. Being a landmark of a small town in not notable (and not given a citation in the article either). The controversy and challenge sections are deeply non-notable. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 18:00, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
- I suggest you review WP:N and/or WP:CORP. You seem to be confused about our notability criteria. Yilloslime TC 18:01, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
- Do you really believe it has "it has had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education"? I have been trying to point out that "an organization is not notable merely because a notable person or event was associated with it." and that "attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability". The depth of coverage is not substantial. All of these go to show that WP:CORP and WP:N are not satisfied. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 18:43, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
- I see we're starting to move in circles--let's try to move forward, instead. The specific requirement of WP:CORP, which is really just a restatement of WP:N is "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources" not that it has had "significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education." How do the sources cited in the article and above not constitute significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources? None are trivial coverage--they are all in depth articles that address the subject of this article directly and in detail. These are all respectable newspapers, so there's no issue with WP:RS. Some are local, sure, but coverage in the NYT and other out of state papers indicates that this is clearly not just a local interest. I'm not seeing a problem. But I admit, as the creator of the article, I'm probably biased. Yilloslime TC 19:40, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
- WP:CORP asks us to consider whether the subject has had "significant or demonstrable effects" etc. So let us consider it. What all that coverage amounts to is that this is a coffee shop which was open for a time and then closed. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 20:02, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
- When you address my questions, I'll address this. Sound fair? Yilloslime TC 20:08, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
- Your question was "How do the sources cited in the article and above not constitute significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources?" My answer, as stated above: Because they state only that this place existed, had a certain ownership, and closed; they do not state that it had any significance. Address this or not, as you please. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 20:15, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
- None of our notability policies require the existence of sources proclaim a topic to be "significant", they mere require that there be significant (i.e. non-trivial) coverage of the topic. The presumption is that if a variety of reliable independent sources are writing about the topic then it must be notable. This admittedly low bar is more than met by the coverage of "the Doodle" in the various sources already cited. To address your question, you are cherry picking: the guideline says only to consider whether it has had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, etc. The part that's written in bold at the top of page says "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources." If we ever required that all topics on wikipedia be supported by references that actually claimed the subject had "significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education" then probably 90% of articles would be deleted. FWIW it think our inclusion criteria are ridiculously low and the project suffers as a result. But they are what they are, and this topic easily exceeds them. Yilloslime TC 20:35, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
- But why would we be invited to "consider" if the policy left us no choice? In fact, it only states that a subject is "generally" considered notable if there is "significant" coverage. So there's scope for consideration about whether notability in any specific case. Indeed, I dispute that the coverage is significant, and also, separately, that it is not indicative of significance. It seems that your argument is tending in the direction of saying that you agree that it would be better if this this article weren't here, but nonetheless you're arguing to keep it. That would be odd. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 17:02, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
- None of our notability policies require the existence of sources proclaim a topic to be "significant", they mere require that there be significant (i.e. non-trivial) coverage of the topic. The presumption is that if a variety of reliable independent sources are writing about the topic then it must be notable. This admittedly low bar is more than met by the coverage of "the Doodle" in the various sources already cited. To address your question, you are cherry picking: the guideline says only to consider whether it has had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, etc. The part that's written in bold at the top of page says "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources." If we ever required that all topics on wikipedia be supported by references that actually claimed the subject had "significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education" then probably 90% of articles would be deleted. FWIW it think our inclusion criteria are ridiculously low and the project suffers as a result. But they are what they are, and this topic easily exceeds them. Yilloslime TC 20:35, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
- Your question was "How do the sources cited in the article and above not constitute significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources?" My answer, as stated above: Because they state only that this place existed, had a certain ownership, and closed; they do not state that it had any significance. Address this or not, as you please. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 20:15, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
- When you address my questions, I'll address this. Sound fair? Yilloslime TC 20:08, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
- WP:CORP asks us to consider whether the subject has had "significant or demonstrable effects" etc. So let us consider it. What all that coverage amounts to is that this is a coffee shop which was open for a time and then closed. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 20:02, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
- I see we're starting to move in circles--let's try to move forward, instead. The specific requirement of WP:CORP, which is really just a restatement of WP:N is "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources" not that it has had "significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education." How do the sources cited in the article and above not constitute significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources? None are trivial coverage--they are all in depth articles that address the subject of this article directly and in detail. These are all respectable newspapers, so there's no issue with WP:RS. Some are local, sure, but coverage in the NYT and other out of state papers indicates that this is clearly not just a local interest. I'm not seeing a problem. But I admit, as the creator of the article, I'm probably biased. Yilloslime TC 19:40, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
- Do you really believe it has "it has had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education"? I have been trying to point out that "an organization is not notable merely because a notable person or event was associated with it." and that "attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability". The depth of coverage is not substantial. All of these go to show that WP:CORP and WP:N are not satisfied. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 18:43, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
- I suggest you review WP:N and/or WP:CORP. You seem to be confused about our notability criteria. Yilloslime TC 18:01, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Doodle Challenge[edit]
I can't see why this is encyclopedic. A one-off eating contest, sourced to an alumni magazine and a website which is hardly a reliable source. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 20:12, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
- Er, yes, it is a reliable source. Or are you accusing Yale of not being verifiable? Also please re-read the section -- it was *not* a one-off, it was just unscheduled/a constant competition like the "high score" list on some video games. If [[3]] is notable, so it this. Markvs88 (talk) 20:47, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
- Are you suggesting that eatfeats.com is academic and peer-reviewed? A mainstream news source? Surely not. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 20:52, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
- Oh, and see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. 20:53, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
- Ample sources verify that the Doodle Challenge existed. The question is whether it should be mentioned in this article. While I agree, the Challenge is not WP:Notable enough for a stand-alone article, I've yet to see an argument about why it shouldn't be mentioned in this article. It's certainly on topic and reliably sourced. Yilloslime TC 21:10, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
- Kenilworth, peer review is not a criteria for Verifiability. Also, if you'd have taken the time to hit the link off that page, you'd have seen the Yale article: [[4]]. As Yilloslime says, it wouldn't be an article on its own, but it was a facet of the Doodle worth noting.Markvs88 (talk) 21:45, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
- I did see the link, which is why I wrote the words "alumni magazine". If there are ample sources, cite them. So far we have one magazine article. WP:V states "All material in Wikipedia articles must be attributable to a reliable published source" and later described reliable sources as "reliable, third-party (independent), published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" and "peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources". I maintained, and maintain, that the website is not a reliable source. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 17:24, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- Kenilworth, there are six published references in the article. The Yale Daily News, Yale Alumni Magazine, New Haven Register, and New York Times are all third party and are all verifiable sources by definition. That there is only one citation for a particular piece of a page is not anything unusual. Markvs88 (talk) 18:23, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- The number of sources for other sections seems rather irrelevant to the question: Is this section encyclopedic? Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 18:36, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- Since other eating contests are, so is this one. Markvs88 (talk) 19:34, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- Kenilworth, there are six published references in the article. The Yale Daily News, Yale Alumni Magazine, New Haven Register, and New York Times are all third party and are all verifiable sources by definition. That there is only one citation for a particular piece of a page is not anything unusual. Markvs88 (talk) 18:23, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- I did see the link, which is why I wrote the words "alumni magazine". If there are ample sources, cite them. So far we have one magazine article. WP:V states "All material in Wikipedia articles must be attributable to a reliable published source" and later described reliable sources as "reliable, third-party (independent), published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" and "peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources". I maintained, and maintain, that the website is not a reliable source. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 17:24, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- Kenilworth, peer review is not a criteria for Verifiability. Also, if you'd have taken the time to hit the link off that page, you'd have seen the Yale article: [[4]]. As Yilloslime says, it wouldn't be an article on its own, but it was a facet of the Doodle worth noting.Markvs88 (talk) 21:45, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
- Ample sources verify that the Doodle Challenge existed. The question is whether it should be mentioned in this article. While I agree, the Challenge is not WP:Notable enough for a stand-alone article, I've yet to see an argument about why it shouldn't be mentioned in this article. It's certainly on topic and reliably sourced. Yilloslime TC 21:10, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
- Oh, and see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. 20:53, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
- Are you suggesting that eatfeats.com is academic and peer-reviewed? A mainstream news source? Surely not. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 20:52, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Is the doodle challenge the most important thing about the Doodle? No. Does it have to be to deserve mention in the article? No. Is it totally trivial and superfluous? No. It is mentioned in multiple sources? Yes. I've yet to hear any reason for excluding this from the article.Yilloslime TC 19:55, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- The website of this shop is not a reliable source for information about biographies of living people. BLP policy requires a reliable published source. I have removed the assertion about the female record holder and it should not be reinserted without proper sourcing. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 20:15, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- And in answer to the question "Is it totally trivial and superfluous?" my answer is a resounding Yes. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 20:16, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- Well no one else seems to think so. You are of course welcome to take this to WP:AfD, otherwise I think it's time to WP:STICK. Yilloslime TC 20:41, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- And in answer to the question "Is it totally trivial and superfluous?" my answer is a resounding Yes. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 20:16, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Infobox[edit]
The infobox recently added includes lines such as "dress-code = Casual | reservations = Not taken | other-information = Credit cards are not accepted." which only make sense for a restaurant that is still open. I think they should be removed, but the person who added the box disagrees on the grounds that these statements were true at one time. Comments? Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 18:54, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Diner?[edit]
I question the identification of the Doodle as a diner. I don't think "diner" is a perjorative term but it just doesn't fit the place. The location is wrong for a diner and a diner serves a much greater variety of foods. I love both diners and the Doodle but the two are different. 65.79.173.135 (talk) 12:34, 29 October 2014 (UTC)Will in New Haven65.79.173.135 (talk) 12:34, 29 October 2014 (UTC)